6 ms·

The CDC head just testified that the CDC has not studied if previous corona infections confer immunity. She refused to say if CDC staff were returning to work

The CDC head just testified that the CDC has not studied if previous corona infections confer immunity. She refused to say if CDC staff were returning to work or what their vaccination rate was. Not sure what they do all day. (My understanding is they have 3,000 staff.)

throwoutway 5y ago
If the CDC said that, it is just carefully worded ignorance. The US’ NIH supported a research that confirmed it: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... Just because “we the CDC” didn’t fund it doesn’t make it any less true.
- kronin 5y ago
  The study states: "We studied sera from adults (ages 18 to 55 years) who received two doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in phase 1 clinical trials (12). The majority of our study focused on 14 individuals who received the 250-μg dose, although we validated key conclusions with a smaller subset of eight trial participants who received the 100-μg dose. The sera were collected at 36 and 119 days after the first vaccine dose, corresponding to 7 and 90 days after the second dose." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/ Strange that the study would focus on individuals who received a 250-μg dose. The adult dose is 100-μg (https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-mRNA-moderna-4000149 https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-...). Yes, the study states that key findings were validated with 8 participants who received the regular dosage, but still seems odd to me. The comparison dataset is explained as: "The convalescent plasma samples were characterized in earlier studies (13–16) and grouped into an early time point of 15 to 60 days after symptom onset and a late time point of 100 to 150 days after symptom onset." So the comparison was between vaccinated individuals, most of whom received a higher dose than is being given out, to infected individuals, and the time periods don't exactly line up. For the vaccinated dataset, the time periods were 7 and 90 days after the second dose. For the other dataset, the time periods were 15-60 days, and 100-150 days after symptom offset. Deeper into the study, there is also this: "The escape maps of the 100-μg cohort resembled those of the 250-μg cohort and fell into the 456/484-targeting, core-targeting, or flat categories (fig. S6). Although the sample sizes are small, and a higher fraction of the 100-μg dose escape maps were flat than for the 250-μg cohort (4 of 8 versus 5 of 14, respectively), this suggests that 100- and 250-μg doses elicit antibody responses similar in the breadth of their RBD-binding specificity."
mullingitover 5y ago
They may not have studied it themselves, but others have[1]. > This study found that among Kentucky residents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, those who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher likelihood of reinfection during May and June 2021. This finding supports the CDC recommendation that all eligible persons be offered COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
- disambiguation 5y ago
  Kind of a tangent, but I hate how all these studies have a 6 month cut off on vaccinated participants We know the vaccine confers high immunity early on, and then wanes. As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting. I would really like to see if this 2.34x improvement lasts in individuals vaccinated 6+ months ago.
  - phonypc 5y ago
    >As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting. What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      Evidence that natural immunity is long lasting and on par with the vaccine's initial levels of protection: Oct 28, 2021 > Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were identified in 97% of COVID-19 convalescent donors at initial presentation. In follow-up analyses, of 116 donors presenting at repeat time points, 91.4% had detectable IgG levels up to 11 months after symptom recovery https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/ Aug 25, 2021 > Model 1 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group > Model 2 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group > Model 3 ... found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/ https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural... June, 2021 > The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(21)00093-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-75... Jan 26, 2021 > As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
maxerickson 5y ago
Are you referring to the testimony here: https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-walensky-testify-before-senate-on-covid-19 https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-wal... More specifically, the exchange ~46 minutes with Burr where she discusses how the CDC is studying infection derived immunity? (I'm not gonna watch the 3 hours to figure out what timestamp you are referring to with the vaccination rate)
_kst_ 5y ago
Does "previous corona infections" refer to previous Covid-19 infections, or previous infections by other corona viruses?
pupdogg 5y ago
Even more interesting is when asked "What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?"...Walensky essentially responded, she didn't know. As the primary national tracker of the pandemic, you would think CDC would know their numbers (especially internal ones) inside out. Source: https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 (time 2:08:35)
redis_mlc 5y ago
[dead]

throwoutway 5y ago

If the CDC said that, it is just carefully worded ignorance. The US’ NIH supported a research that confirmed it: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera... Just because “we the CDC” didn’t fund it doesn’t make it any less true.

kronin 5y ago
The study states: "We studied sera from adults (ages 18 to 55 years) who received two doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in phase 1 clinical trials (12). The majority of our study focused on 14 individuals who received the 250-μg dose, although we validated key conclusions with a smaller subset of eight trial participants who received the 100-μg dose. The sera were collected at 36 and 119 days after the first vaccine dose, corresponding to 7 and 90 days after the second dose." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/ Strange that the study would focus on individuals who received a 250-μg dose. The adult dose is 100-μg (https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-mRNA-moderna-4000149 https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-...). Yes, the study states that key findings were validated with 8 participants who received the regular dosage, but still seems odd to me. The comparison dataset is explained as: "The convalescent plasma samples were characterized in earlier studies (13–16) and grouped into an early time point of 15 to 60 days after symptom onset and a late time point of 100 to 150 days after symptom onset." So the comparison was between vaccinated individuals, most of whom received a higher dose than is being given out, to infected individuals, and the time periods don't exactly line up. For the vaccinated dataset, the time periods were 7 and 90 days after the second dose. For the other dataset, the time periods were 15-60 days, and 100-150 days after symptom offset. Deeper into the study, there is also this: "The escape maps of the 100-μg cohort resembled those of the 250-μg cohort and fell into the 456/484-targeting, core-targeting, or flat categories (fig. S6). Although the sample sizes are small, and a higher fraction of the 100-μg dose escape maps were flat than for the 250-μg cohort (4 of 8 versus 5 of 14, respectively), this suggests that 100- and 250-μg doses elicit antibody responses similar in the breadth of their RBD-binding specificity."

mullingitover 5y ago

They may not have studied it themselves, but others have[1]. > This study found that among Kentucky residents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, those who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher likelihood of reinfection during May and June 2021. This finding supports the CDC recommendation that all eligible persons be offered COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

disambiguation 5y ago
Kind of a tangent, but I hate how all these studies have a 6 month cut off on vaccinated participants We know the vaccine confers high immunity early on, and then wanes. As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting. I would really like to see if this 2.34x improvement lasts in individuals vaccinated 6+ months ago.
- phonypc 5y ago
  >As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting. What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    Evidence that natural immunity is long lasting and on par with the vaccine's initial levels of protection: Oct 28, 2021 > Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were identified in 97% of COVID-19 convalescent donors at initial presentation. In follow-up analyses, of 116 donors presenting at repeat time points, 91.4% had detectable IgG levels up to 11 months after symptom recovery https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/ Aug 25, 2021 > Model 1 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group > Model 2 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group > Model 3 ... found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural-immunity-to-vaccine-induced-immunity-reinfections-versus-breakthrough-infections/ https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural... June, 2021 > The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(21)00093-3/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-75... Jan 26, 2021 > As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19 https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...

maxerickson 5y ago

Are you referring to the testimony here: https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-walensky-testify-before-senate-on-covid-19 https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-wal... More specifically, the exchange ~46 minutes with Burr where she discusses how the CDC is studying infection derived immunity? (I'm not gonna watch the 3 hours to figure out what timestamp you are referring to with the vaccination rate)

_kst_ 5y ago

Does "previous corona infections" refer to previous Covid-19 infections, or previous infections by other corona viruses?

pupdogg 5y ago

Even more interesting is when asked "What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?"...Walensky essentially responded, she didn't know. As the primary national tracker of the pandemic, you would think CDC would know their numbers (especially internal ones) inside out. Source: https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 (time 2:08:35)

redis_mlc 5y ago

[dead]